From here but reproduced in full below since it is such a umm, classic.
Update: here is the Anglican Journal’s view of things. My only question is: is the picture a bad photoshop edit, over-enthusiastic flash, or a cardboard cutout. You decide.
July 2, 2008
The Gospel of God in Christ is faithfully proclaimed by Canadian Anglicans today (but usually not by the clergy – yes, there are exceptions: clergy who, against all odds emerge from seminary without having had all the faith squashed out of them) just as it has been by generations who have gone before us. I believe it is important to state this truth in response to the recent statement from the GAFCON gathering in Jerusalem, which suggests otherwise.
The GAFCON statement is based on a premise that there is “acceptance and promotion within the provinces of the Anglican Communion of a different gospel which is contrary to the apostolic gospel.” The statement specifically accuses Anglican churches in the Canada and the United States of proclaiming this “false gospel that has paralysed the Communion.” I challenge and repudiate this charge. (Fred, Fred, you really should read your own church’s newspapers)
In my first year as Primate, I have visited many parishes across the country (We would love to have you visit the real St. Hilda’s, Fred. We have – questions), attended synods and participated in gatherings of clergy and laity who care deeply for the church, its unity and witness. What I see is a faithful proclamation of the apostolic gospel in liturgy and loving service to those in need and in advocacy for justice and peace for all people.
The mission statement of the Anglican Church of Canada professes that we “value our heritage of biblical faith, reason, liturgy, tradition, bishops and synods, and the rich variety of our life in community.” And we do. The Anglican Church of Canada also values its role in the worldwide Anglican Communion (well, not much of a role any more since it is outside of most of the worldwide Anglican Communion). We are committed to constructive dialogue on all issues facing our beloved church and the Communion, including the blessing of same-sex unions. We remain convinced that as contentious as this issue may be, it should not be a Communion-breaking issue (You are in denial, Fred, it already has broken the Communion – GAFCON, remember?). We have a deep and abiding commitment to the Windsor Report (sorry for the interruption to the mellifluous flow again, but have you impressed that “deep and abiding commitment” on Michael Ingham?) , and the Communion-wide conversations regarding a Covenant among the provinces.
We cherish our relationship with the See of Canterbury and honour our Archbishop as “first among equals” and as a vital instrument of communion. At his invitation, our bishops and their spouses will participate in the Lambeth Conference 2008. They go mindful of the Archbishop’s hope that through this conference, our relationships in Christ will be deepened and our capacity as leaders in mission will be strengthened.
I do not believe the Anglican Communion is paralyzed by a false gospel. While we recognize that our relationships are bruised and broken the gospel calls us to be reconciled, to pursue healing (oh pull the other one and, while you are at it, tell it to the Bishop of Niagara) and to seek the counsel of the Holy Spirit. It calls all those in leadership to use their authority “not to hurt but to heal, not to destroy but to build up” and “to unite the church in a holy fellowship of truth and love.” (Does that mean we can have our altar vessels, candlesticks and linen back? Oh, almost forgot, and our building.)
As we continue to work our way through these times of tension in the Communion (butter wouldn’t melt in my mouth; surely no-one thinks I caused the tension… surely?), I ask for the prayers of the church that we may be faithful to the gospel of Him in whom we are forever one.
David – they now have a petition to sign onto the Jerusalem Declaration over on Anglican Mainstream and the Ugley Vicar. I have signed it – maybe you can link. It is the one for those outside the UK.
Pauline, yes, this is the link.
I have always been under the impression (sorry, believed) the Lord the Holy Spirit is alive and well, but reading this statement I see He has been reduced to “It.” Why am I not surprised?
What I see is a faithful proclamation of the apostolic gospel in liturgy and loving service to those in need and in advocacy for justice and peace for all people.
He left out “proclamation of the apostolic gospel” in preaching, which was, I seem to recall, the method of proclamation favoured by the apostles.
As a clergyman, Fred Hiltz is an excellent politician.
Cross-posted from Titus 1:9:
For Canadians, the main import of this statement is that ++Hiltz has for the first time agreed to have his responses written by a ghostwriter. There is absolutely no way ++Hiltz wrote this statement; it is too well organized. Canadians may now start to try and deduce who his ghostwriter is.
In the past, the distinguishing feature of all ++Hiltz’s genuine utterances have been that they are incoherent, sometimes close to illiterate. Either someone has got to him, or, like many Canadians, he’s going on vacation and just asked someone he trusts to write something up so he could sign it and take off.
Toral
I didn’t want to put this in the main section, but this word truly sums up my carefully considered, dialogue enhancing, expansively inclusive opinion of Fred’s missive.
My two cents from T19 here:
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/13915/#comments
#5 I had the same thought as I read the first sentence.
I would urge readers to think deeply about this sentence:
What I see is a faithful proclamation of the apostolic gospel in liturgy and loving service to those in need and in advocacy for justice and peace for all people.
So here is my question. Is the proclamation of the apostolic gospel preaching repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, or is it reading a prayer book in front of someone dressed like a Jedi Knight?
And another question. Is the church the temple of God Himself, built by the Holy Spirit of men women and children who have put their trust in Jesus, and in whose midst the apostolic gospel is preached, believed, and obeyed, or is it a social club with a religious theme?
Me thinks ++Fred speaketh with forketh tongue. I sometimes wonder if he even realizes the tactics his bishops are employing to quiet those of us who wish to remain true to scripture and Anglican fundamentals. In ++Fred’s world all is okay and anyone who says differently is sadly misguided. Please pray for ++Fred and indeed for all bishops, priests and lay people still bailing in the rudderless ship ACoC.
This statement provides all the proof one needs for refusing to refer to Fred Hiltz as “bishop”. He is just as deceptive as our worst politicians and does indeed with the rest of the clergy that willingly or blindly follow in his footsteps lead people away from eternal security by giving supremacy to political expediency over the authority and truth of Scripture.
The ACoC can hardly expect members to make donations to the National Church when that Church is determined to sieze properties and drive orthodox believers into the cold.
You know, you’d think he’d have the cahones to admit to anything regarding the ACC’s spit in the eye of the Anglican Communion over the past five years? But that would be expecting too much of him. What is the worst is the pretence that the Anglican Church of Canada is following scripture. Aarghh! Fred, just be honest and say that you want to follow the United Church into oblivion. Stop talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time. Why don’t you respond to any of the heretical church articles or sermons that are being written and preached every week in your church?
I was deeply troubled by the tenor of your response to Archbishop Hiltze’s statement, not because I disagreed with the sentiments. I did not but thought the response showed a monumental lack of charity and a form of judgmentalism which the Lord himself warns against. We are to speak the truth in love, not unveiled animosity.
James – Unfortunately commenting on the blogs can become a feeding frenzy and we say things we would not say if the person was standing in front of us. I think it has something to do with the anonymity of the blogs where our worst side can be safely shown without consequences. So many of us have been in a situation of oppression for so long it is easy to over-react in our replies. It is best to take a deep breath and think before we reply with charity. The medium is the message – instant and non-retractable.
James, reacting negatively to someone who’s lying to you is not “judgmental”, it is normal. It doesn’t matter in the least whether the liar is a government official or a man of the cloth.
“We have a deep and abiding commitment to the Windsor Report” is a lie, demonstrably so. There’s a time to be all sweetness and light, and there’s a time to call out the “whited sepulchres” for what they are.
I find it extremely offensive and lacking in all good grace, as well as very poor taste, to intersperse editorial comments throughout Hiltz’s statement. You’re just plain rude!
Michael, it’s known as “fisking”:
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/glossary_archives/001961.html
David did not invent it.
15 Michael,
You’re just plain rude!
Rude – perhaps. Plain – now my feelings are hurt *sob*.
David,
I’ll remember you in my prayers for healing.
18 Michael,
Thank you, I’ll take all the prayer I can get – and welcome to the blog!
Michael (#15), I wonder if you would submit a post where you could insert your comments (or alternative study notes) of choice just as David has done? Then we would have parallel readings
Seriously though, the tragedy is that Fred has both visual, hearing and discernment problems and no one close to him will point that out nor will he figure it out by himself.
Michael (#15), although your emotional tone suggests that you disagree with David’s assessment, your comment only says that you are concerned with manner in which he formatted his statements. Are you always so dramatic when you make editorial comments? If it is really the content you are concerned with, could you give us something to work with other than simplistic name calling?
“Does that mean we can have our altar vessels, candlesticks and linen back? Oh, almost forgot, and our building”
You guys don’t own the building though. The diocese does. Not really hard to figure out.
Derek (#22), in view of eternity, the physical structure really isn’t very important.
#22 Derek,
You guys don’t own the building though. The diocese does. Not really hard to figure out.
My original parenthetical comment was partly theatrical. The ownership of the building has yet to be determined. Nevertheless, we paid for its construction, its maintenance over the last 50 odd years and have made productive use of it during that time, so I think we have at least some claim to it.
“we paid for its construction, its maintenance over the last 50 odd years and have made productive use of it during that time, so I think we have at least some claim to it.”
The law is secular. The Diocese owns title to the property, right?
I was a church warden until last year — I understood that loud and clear. Still, I also understood how to make that work in the parish’s favor. If anything went terribly wrong (needing repairs and such) and the money wasn’t there, it was up to the Diocese to bail us out. I can’t accept a lot of credit for it though — our interim rector was very sly.
It just occurred to me — my parish pays an enormous DMA, partly to keep a nearby parish from having to shut its doors. By your logic, would my parish then have some claim to that parish’s building?
25,
The law is secular. The Diocese owns title to the property, right?
In our instance, yes. Nevertheless if the case were as clear cut as you would like it to be, we would already have a ruling on ownership. As it is, we haven’t and the judge in the last ruling stated clearly that both sides have an arguable case.